At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.

At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.

At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.

Thanks hun. I was prochoice until today, but i thought about it, and I feel that prolife beliefs are right for me. I seriously love Dr Paul.

At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.

Clearly states that God killed all the first born children. Therefore he supports post 3rd trimester abortion as well

A no true Scotsman fallacy is one of the trickier ones to identify because something can appear similar in form simply by someone omitting something in a categorical definition.

The idea is that you define a category, make a universal statement about that category, and then when presented with a counter-example say that the example is not really part of that category despite it meeting the definition. i.e. you admit an exception but don't admit your universal is false.

As you can see everything turns on whether the counter-example truly is part of the category given. So even if you say something like:

No libertarian is pro-life.

and someone says:

I'm a libertarian and I'm pro-life

you go:No true libertarian is pro-life

that is not necessarily a NTS fallacy since it is quite possible that the categorical definition of a libertarian is not simply "someone who claims to be a libertarian." It is possible that some element inherently implied by the definition of libertarian makes it impossible for any libertarian to be pro-life.

For instance there is no such thing as a racist which believes in racial equality. If someone came against me with a counter example I would say "that's no true racist."

Now as a self-described libertarian I would say it is certainly not implied by any common definition of libertarian that one must be pro-choice.

I do not wish to take a stand on the issue, but I will point out that even on the basis of a right to liberty everything turns on whether or not you consider the fetus a 'person' or 'unique individual' in the way you would consider an infant one.

Even the most radical believer in liberty (and you won't find many more radical than I) cedes that nobody should have the liberty to deprive others of liberty.

So if an abortion is considered by a libertarian to be in the same category as killing an infant, or a child; then of course they are going to be against it because that deprives the offspring of liberty. The parent's liberty to murder is no right.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

He also gave bush power. Bush became president so that he can mess up our economy .That gave rise to Obama whom is the anti christ. Barak in Hebrew is lighting, which in the hebrew bible is clarified. Jesus says he saw satan fall like "Barak" from heaven. Our economy and morality must suffer so that Obama can bring about the end times.

At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

Not necessarily. A No True Scotsman is a version of begging the question. Therefore, a no true scotsman must fail to justify why a "true" something would act in such a way.

For example, a No True Scotsman may claim:

"A true liberal would support drug legalisation." It does not necessarily follow from liberalism that a liberal ought to, and on its own it does not justify itself. It begs the question, and therefore is fallacious.

A non-fallacious argument of similar form:

"A true liberal would value consent and liberty." The common academic understanding of liberalism is one which values these things, and therefore it is pretty much a safe premise in itself.

In short, a no true scotsman is fallacious for it begs the question: "But what makes false X's not support what you are saying?"

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

At 11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life

No it's not. Replace fetus with a hobo. Libertarianism says you don't have to let him live in your fetus, even though he's life. Done.

Replace hobo with two year old. Does Libertarianism say you don't have to feed your own children?

It could be argued that under certain moral philosophies associated with Libertarianism (e.g. Objectivism) that it would be immoral to give or receive aid (since this would be altruism, which is seen as irrational), which would be a necessary part of being or having a child. Then again, objectivism would hold that abortion is fine in the first place.

On a side note (not intending to derail the thread, I just thought of this while examining a few libertarian philosophies), why is there a false dichotomy projected between collectivism (emphasis of collective over individual) and individualism (emphasis of individual over collective)? Shouldn't stating that everyone is equally valuable be regarded as a moderate stance instead of being the views of an evil collectivist statist pig?

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

At 11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life

No it's not. Replace fetus with a hobo. Libertarianism says you don't have to let him live in your fetus, even though he's life. Done.

Replace hobo with two year old. Does Libertarianism say you don't have to feed your own children?

It could be argued that under certain moral philosophies associated with Libertarianism (e.g. Objectivism) that it would be immoral to give or receive aid (since this would be altruism, which is seen as irrational), which would be a necessary part of being or having a child. Then again, objectivism would hold that abortion is fine in the first place.

Giving and receiving aid is not altruism under the objectivist definition of the word unless you are doing it because the other person values that aid (and you must always place the needs of others first) as opposed to you valuing the other person.

You don't seriously believe Objectivist object to raising children [and indeed being beholden to do so with a certain competence if you accept the responsibility] do you?

On a side note (not intending to derail the thread, I just thought of this while examining a few libertarian philosophies), why is there a false dichotomy projected between collectivism (emphasis of collective over individual) and individualism (emphasis of individual over collective)?

The dichotomy between the real liberty of real people vs the imaginary liberty of collective abstractions is not false. If a collective has the right to make decisions for its 'members' by the mechanism of majority (or anything else but perfect consensus) the liberties of individuals are sacrificed.

Therefore the only way for an individual to have liberty is if no one has the right to countermand the requirement for their consent. Not other individuals, not collections of other individuals. Thus there is a valid dichotomy between everything else but individualism in the context of liberty.

'emphasis' is the kind of word a non-libertarian would use because it relates to the viewpoint of some entity deciding what's more likely to work or what's "worth it" to society. That is not how libertarians think (and I'm glad of it).

Shouldn't stating that everyone is equally valuable be regarded as a moderate stance instead of being the views of an evil collectivist statist pig?

You can state it, you can believe it, you can act on it; but if you try to force others to do any of those three then you're an evil collectivist statist pig.

Liberty is not the valuing of men but valuing their freedom, and all major libertarian philosophies advocate equality of liberty.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

At 11/21/2013 2:54:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:The only thing I see as "accept the responsibility" is signing a contract. If you have no contract, your only obligation to a child is to let them walk away freely from any relations with you.

An interesting position, but unfortunately it runs into the problem of legal consent being required for contracts and reaching the age of 18 being required for legal consent, and finally no mammal goes from zygote to 18 without a lot of help.

Either there is an implied contract when you decide to do something that may well result in conception or people can effectively abort their children up to the age of what, four five? Much higher in worse economic times.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

At 11/21/2013 2:54:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:The only thing I see as "accept the responsibility" is signing a contract. If you have no contract, your only obligation to a child is to let them walk away freely from any relations with you.

An interesting position, but unfortunately it runs into the problem of legal consent being required for contracts and reaching the age of 18 being required for legal consent

I'm not describing present legal rules but rather ideals, and I'm not in favor of that requirement.

and finally no mammal goes from zygote to 18 without a lot of help.

Some do. The odds are definitely worse. In any case need is never a claim.

Either there is an implied contract when you decide to do something that may well result in conception

Nope. I do things that may result in increased taxes or less legal forms of robbery, doesn't make it as though I signed anything.

or people can effectively abort their children up to the age of what, four five? Much higher in worse economic times.

"Effectively abort" as in, end relations with? I suppose. I care not. If you do, open an orphanage.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

It depends on your definition of libertarian. I wouldn't think so, if the defining feature of libertarianism was the NAP.

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

At 11/21/2013 2:54:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:The only thing I see as "accept the responsibility" is signing a contract. If you have no contract, your only obligation to a child is to let them walk away freely from any relations with you.

An interesting position, but unfortunately it runs into the problem of legal consent being required for contracts and reaching the age of 18 being required for legal consent

I'm not describing present legal rules but rather ideals, and I'm not in favor of that requirement.

Under any set of rules in the book nobody can negotiate a contract for their own conception and upbringing. I am afraid our species' biology simply isn't compatible with the notion that parents have no responsibility to their offspring.

I do want to give you the ADOL star for special competence seeing as you are the first person on this site who has indicated they understand the difference between legal present and legal proper.

In any case need is never a claim.

Even if you create the need yourself?

Either there is an implied contract when you decide to do something that may well result in conception

Nope. I do things that may result in increased taxes or less legal forms of robbery, doesn't make it as though I signed anything.

Nevertheless if you do something that requires the consent of another without explicitly receiving that consent it is quite possible that you enter into an implied contract until such time as the other informs you that the terms are not what you expected.

I know it doesn't make much sense to talk about 'consent to be created' but perhaps that is the clearest way to think about it?

Can I pose a question to you, if someone cloned you; would that require your consent (they didn't need your cooperation, they got the DNA from a scan or a skin cell you left somewhere)?

or people can effectively abort their children up to the age of what, four five? Much higher in worse economic times.

"Effectively abort" as in, end relations with? I suppose. I care not. If you do, open an orphanage.

Did you care when you were seven?

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.